Some unique individuals want to change a definition that doesn't rationally include them

At national conference. Great that Julia has allowed a debate on changing the platform of how marriage is defined .
Suddenly a self select group of comrades and delegates( who can't even fill the conference room normally
 are going to storm a decision held against them for the life of the party. ( Margin against the decision in the real democracy is said to be 4:1against )ensuring labors electoral defeat and labors allowance of a voting block.A conference where Faulkner is the intellectual of note ( by winning a word game that really doesn't mean anything) and  Cameron the commended character assassin. Not a good look for the party.
A simple truth -one relationship is not just one in marriage ,something that equality spruckers seem to ignore-(equality and rights of those affected?) its more than 2 people doing what they like .In secular terms marriage  focus has always been on families .Wong doesn't mention this issue because only one thing is clear . we want to be treated as though we are just the same as everyone else when to do that means rejecting the idea of their uniqueness ( something we do respect).
No doubt we will hear from comrades about what they think. Whether the delegates on the question of changing the definition of marriage represent anything but homsexuals is not clear . What is clear is that this small group want to control the meaning of the word .Marriage is not a right but the lobby say it is . Sound thinkers know that those who fight for rights may only have their own issues in focus . Marriage as defined by law ( not religion) is for the benefit of children in particular .
Respecting adult choices over sex speaks to life's aspirations for children . The majority of us accept that we should respect adult choices .This we will continue to do What we don't accept is the dictation from a minority that marriage should mean all things to all men .The shallow ambition of a few will become the model of confusion for our children. I hope a few comrades don't get their way on something that affects our children attitude to matters of commitment and how and where it works for their long term benefit.